Raman Kumar Sawhney vs Dtc
2004 Latest Caselaw 1192 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 22.12.1986 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No. 223/1980 whereby the learned Tribunal has held that there is no evidence on record to show that Bus No. DHP 2289 was driven rashly and negligently or was involved in the accident dated 25.2.1980 as claimed by the appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are as follows:-

".... on 25.2.1980 at about 9.50 a.m., he was going on Ashoka Raod near Jantar Mantar round about on his two wheeler scooter at slow pace and on his correct side of road. A D.T.C. Bus No. DHP-2289 driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash, reckless and negligent manner came from behind and while taking a turn towards its left hit the petitioner's scooter with the front of the bus, as a result of which the petitioner fell down and was injured.

The petitioner was unable to walk. The driver of the bus took the petitioner to one pehalwan in Rehgarpura who diagnosed the injury as fracture and suggested for going to the hospital. The petitioner was brought to Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital by the driver and was got admitted there. The petitioner remained in the Hospital for two days who was also operated upon and plaster was applied. The petitioner was aged about 36 years at the time of this accident. After this accident he has suffered a lot, bodily as well as financially. The petitioner had to spent about Rs. 400/- on conveyance and Rs. 200/- on medicines. He had also to take special nourishing diet on which he spent about Rs. 20/- per day since the day of this accident. The petitioner had a so to remain on long leave and had ultimately to give up his job. He was employed with a concern of Chartered Accountants and also was doing private work as agent of L.I.C. And National Savings Organisations. The petitioner submits that he was earning s.3,000/- per month. The petitioner's claim is that he had to suffer income loss during the period of his treatment and he has also been rendered in-capable to earn more in future too. The petitioner has claimed an award o Rs. 2.00 lac by way of compensation against respondent/DTC and its driver-Surjit Singh."

3. Counsel for the appellant lays emphasis on the statements of PW-2, Satish Chander, PW-7, Anil Chabra, PW-8, Mr.Veena Sawhney the wife of the appellant and PW-13, the appellant himself.

4. PW-2, Satish Chander Chhiber states that on 25.2.1980 he was coming on Ashoka Road from Parliament Street when he saw Bus No. DHP 2289 coming from the side of Ashoka Road itself, hitting one scooterist. The bus stopped after causing the accident. The front portion of the bus collided with the scooter. He further states that he stopped on the spot for 12 to 15 minutes and went away after giving his name and address to the appellant. In cross-examination this witness states that he did not inform the police about the accident nor was he examined in any criminal court. He also cannot recognize the driver of the bus.

5. PW-5, Dr.A.K.Dabbas examined the injured on 25.2.1980 and made out case sheet, Exhibit PW-5/1, PW-5/2, PW-5/3, PW-5/4. In none of these documents is there any mention of injuries having being caused on account of accident with the bus.

6. PW-7, Anil Chabbra deposes to the effect that on 25.2.1980 he was going to Janpath via Ashoka Road when he witnessed the bus DHP 2289 strike against the rear side of the scooter DEM 2049. He stayed at the spot for a short time, gave his name and address to the appellant and went away.

7. PW-8, Mrs. Veena Sahwney, wife of the injured deposed to the effect that on 25.2.1980 her husband accompanied by Surjit Singh was brought to the residence at about 10.30 a.m. in an injured condition in a three wheeler scooter. He was then taken to a pehelwan for massage who advised them that the injured should be taken to a hospital. Upon which, the injured was taken to the hospital by the driver of the offending bus. The driver remained at the hospital till 8.00 p.m. This witness does not say anything about the so-called names and addresses of witnesses, which were alleged to have been with the appellant at the time of being taken to the hospital.

8. PW-13, the appellant himself states that on 25.2.1980 he was going to his office on a scooter, when at Ashoka Road, Jantar Mantar Crossing, DTC bus, DHP 2289, struck his scooter from the rear, as a result of the impact he received injuries on his right ankle. The bus stopped and people tried to help him walk. He was unable to walk. Two persons gave their names and addresses in writing and the driver of the bus took him to his house on a three wheeler scooter and thereafter to Willingdon Hospital.

9. From an appraisal of the facts on record, it appears that the eye-witnesses have been introduced to bolster the case. In the first instance, there is no examination of the scooter in question, nor was the bus impounded, nor an F.I.R. Lodged. There is also no mention in the documents exhibited by Dr.Dabbas of a bus accident. There is also no mention of driver of the bus having brought the injured to the Hospital in Exhibit PW-4/1. There is also no mention of the so-called eye-witnesses in the startment of the wife of the injured who is stated to have been informed of the happenings at the site by her husband and also by the alleged driver of the offending vehicle. There is also nothing in the statement of the so-called eye-witnesses to the effect that they gave their names and addresses to the injured in writing. Since ocular evidence finds no support from the damage to the scooter and/or scrapings of the colour of the bus on the scooter and such like evidence, which could have been procured, has the accident in fact occurred and an F.I.R. Lodged, I find it difficult to dislodge the reasoning of the Tribunal which has discussed the matter at length while arriving at the conclusion that the involvement of bus No. DHP 2289 in the alleged accident is not proved.

10. In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the judgment under challenge. FAO 118/1987 is dismissed.